Kessler v. Sacramento City Police Department et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/18/2018 GRANTING 40 Motion for Extension. Plaintiff's Response to 36 Motion for Summary Judgment is EXTENDING to 2/21/2018. Defendant's reply, if any, is due no later than 7 days after plaintiff's response is filed. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may construe the lack of response as plaintiff's non-opposition to defendant's motion. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WESLEY WILLIAM KESSLER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-01930 GEB AC PS

v.

ORDER

HIGHT,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is proceeding in this case in pro per. The proceeding has accordingly been

17
18

referred to the magistrate judge by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21).
Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to respond to defendant’s motion for summary

19
20

judgment (ECF No. 36) on grounds that his location of incarceration restricts access to his legal

21

documents. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff avers that he will not have access to his legal documents until

22

after February 2, 2018. Id.

23

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is GRANTED (ECF No. 40);

25

2. Plaintiff must file his response to defendant’s motion no later than February 21, 2018.

26

Defendant’s reply, if any, is due no later than 7 days after plaintiff’s response is filed.

27

////

28

////

1
2
3
4

3. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may construe the
lack of response as plaintiff’s non-opposition to defendant’s motion.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 18, 2018

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2